EPTI've seen plenty of people concede in an argument on the internet after being proving wrong/convinced... It doesn't happen nearly as much as both parties arguing endlessly, but it happens. The irony in that article is pretty hilarilous.
Science: You'll never win on the internet. - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
I've seen plenty of people concede in an argument on the internet after being proving wrong/convinced... It doesn't happen nearly as much as both parties arguing endlessly, but it happens. The irony in that article is pretty hilarilous. | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: That's why you close-to-never see these words on the internet: "I'm sorry, my bad" "I was wrong, I guess you're right" Basically that article is just proving what was pretty obvious before! Except on Team Liquid. You see it a lot more often (Especially from me) for one reason I can fathom: The regular filth of internet forum posts gets banned around here. | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
It is very rare that people change their opinions, but at the very least I have seen where other opinions are coming from and see their viewpoint as (somewhat  ) reasonable. And I have changed my opinion before too.Though most arguing is pointless, it is true | ||
|
Tianx
United States1196 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On July 13 2011 09:37 happyness wrote: How is this website/author of the article even credible? It is very rare that people change their opinions, but at the very least I have seen where other opinions are coming from and see their viewpoint as (somewhat ) reasonable. And I have changed my opinion before too.Though most arguing is pointless, it is true The website is just another one of those popular science ones. It tries to explain everything by reducing an entire field of research to a message that fits inside a fortune cookie. Cognitive dissonance theory (which is what this is) doesn't claim that people are unable to change their beliefs, it just gives a psychological model for when people are able and likely to do so, and when they're aren't able and are very unlikely to do so. It applies to every idea you hold and every discussion you take part in. For example: Take a 'debate' (a.k.a. shouting match) between 2 extreme sides of the political spectrum (or a teamliquid discussion between a hardcore 'Z is UP' person and a hardcore 'forcefields are hard' person). A debate like that involves a persons 'core' beliefs, and changing your most basic beliefs is near impossible, because changing a belief like that has huge implications for your entire worldview. You don't ever see an 'activist liberal' change the beliefs of an 'activist socialist', or the other way around. Yet when the same two people enter a discussion on convictions that aren't part of their 'core', on let's say 'what hamburger restaurant has the best employment opportunities', it is entirely possible for both sides to change their mind, because it is a conviction that has no impact on their worldview. On the other hand, if you get 1 person that loves working for McDonalds pitted vs someone that loves working for Burger King, neither side will yield to their opponent when it comes to what the best fast food chain is, but if they both don't give a shit about politics, it's entirely possible for them to reach an agreement on what the best direction for a country is. Popular science has its uses, but you have to understand the limitations of reducing an entire field of theory to something that can be digested in 5 minutes from a website. I realize my post is essentially the same thing, but let's hope it clears at least something up. It's not impossible to change someone's mind on the internet, as long as he/she doesn't care a great deal about the subject being discussed. Which is fairly unlikely, because people are drawn to threads they care a great deal about. | ||
|
Svetz
Australia311 Posts
| ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On July 13 2011 09:40 Tianx wrote: The goal isn't necessarily to convince the person you're arguing against, but other people listening in. This sums it up. I don't think anyone goes into a debate (real life or internet) with a realistic hope of 'converting' the other side. The people on the fence are the ones that can be won. | ||
|
KiLL_ORdeR
United States1518 Posts
| ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?pagewanted=all | ||
|
Ciraxis
Australia400 Posts
Here is a fantastic video about it. | ||
|
Docta Spaceman
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
I would like to think that this actually sums up the internet considering its often a free forum where people with relatively little qualifications on many topics get into heated debates EDIT: Someone two lines above me beat me to it. This theory seems to be related to "ignorance is bliss" Studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect tend to focus on American test subjects. Similar studies on European subjects show marked muting of the effect; studies on some East Asian subjects suggest that something like the opposite of the Dunning–Kruger effect operates on self-assessment and motivation to improve: This line is interesting to me and might explain why I find playing league of legends on the US Server significantly less enjoyable from a player interactions perspective. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
| ||
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
when you're lacking the pressure of real social context and the norms of proper direct communication that come with it, you can spit out whatever you like without the fear of relevant loss in any form that you have irl (losing a close person because your mode of thoguht proves incompatible with the other person, or losing a friend because you insulted him, or getting punched in the face for talking stupid, or getting thrown out of the debate club for being unable to carry a proper argument, or losing a job etc.etc.), and all arguments become a cesspool of fallacies bar the rare guys that engage in proper argument, and even then, because there's no finality to any argument over the internet due to the multitudes of people involved in it, you only end up with diluted arguments. it's funny, we all know presenting arguments over the internet is an unproductive expenditure of time, yet we all do it, guess it's because after all there's things to be gained just from being exposed to the way other people think, however poor it may be, plus that's this thing that we have, hope, for that randomly occuring engaging conversation you get into on an interesting topic with some guys from half way across the world :-)) anyway, interesting or rather funny op stating the obvious ^^ | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
Thats how the internet works right? | ||
|
CuriousMoose
United States73 Posts
 | ||
|
Atila
Cuba122 Posts
| ||
| ||
